First, This is taken as fixed, that the apostle wrote this epistle by divine inspiration. Having evidence hereof abundantly satisfac- tory, it is the vainest thing imaginable, and that which discovers a frame of mind disposed to cavil at things divine, if from the diffi- culties of any one passage we should reflect on the authority of the whole, as some have done on this occasion. But I shall say with some confidence, he never understood any one chapter of the epistle, nay, nor any one verse of it aright, who did or doth ques- tion its divine original, There is nothing human in it,—that sa- vours, I mean, of human infirmity,—but the whole and every part of it is animated by the wisdom and authority of its Author. And those who have pretended to be otherwise minded on such slight occasions as that before us, have but proclaimed their own want of experience in things divine. But,—
Secondly, There is nothing, in all that 1s here affirmed by the apostle, which hath the least appearance of contradiction unto any thing that is recorded by Moses in the story of these things; yea, as I shall show, without the consideration and addition of the things here mentioned by the apostle, we cannot aright apprehend nor understand the account that is given by him. This will be made evident in the consideration of the particulars, wherein the difference between them is supposed to consist.
Thirdly, The apostle doth not take his account of the things here put together by him from any one place in Moses, but gathers up what is declared in the Law, in several places unto various ends. For, as hath been declared, he doth not design only to prove the dedication of the covenant by blood, but to show also the whole use of blood under the law, as unto purification and remission of Sin. And this he doth to declare the virtue and efficacy of the blood of Christ under the new testament, whereunto he makes an applica-
tion of all these things in the verses ensuing. Wherefore he gathers
into one head sundry things wherein the sprinkling of blood was of use under the law, as they are occasionally expressed in sundry places. And this one observation removes all the difficulties of the context; which all arise from this one supposition, that the apostle gives here an account only of what was done at the dedication of the first covenant. So, in particular, by the addition of those par-
ticles, xu) 6¢, verse 21, which we well render “ moreover,” he plainly
intimates that what he affirms of the tabernacle and the vessels of its ministry was that which was done afterwards, at another time, and not when the covenant was first confirmed.
346 AN EXPOSITION OF THE _ [orar. rx.
On these grounds we shall see that the account given of these things by the apostle is a necessary exposition of the record made of them by Moses, and no more.
1. He affirms that Moses took the blood wécywv nal rpdyar, “ of calves and goats.” And there is a double difficulty herein: for, (1.) The blood that Moses so used was the blood of oxen, Exod. xxiv. 5; which seems not to be well rendered by méoywr, “of calves.” But this hath no weight in it. For 58, the word there used, signifies all cattle of the herd, great and small, every thing that is “generis bovini.” And there is no necessity from the words that we should render 0% 8 there by “oxen,” nor péoywv here by “calves;” we might have rendered both words by “bullocks,’ But, (2.) There is no mention at all of goats in the story of Moses; and, as we observed, it is here omitted by the Syriac translator, but with- out cause.
Ans. [1.] There were two sorts of offerings that were made on this occasion; 1st, Burnt-offerings; 2dly, Peace-offerings: Exod. xxiv, 5, “They offered burnt-ofterings, and sacrificed peace-offerings.” The distinct expression of them proves the offerings to have been distinct : poy onat ywnaMry riby ys ,—“‘ they offered burnt-offerings, and they sacrificed,” or “slew peace-offerings”” And as for the peace-offerings, it is said that they were of bullocks or oxen; but it is not said of what sort the burnt-offerings were. Yea, and it may be that although bullocks only are mentioned, yet that goats also were sacrificed in this peace-offering; for it is so far from being true what Ribera observes on the place, that a goat was never offered for a peace-offering, that the contrary unto it is directly expressed in the institution of the peace-offering, Lev. iii. 12, Wherefore the blood of goats might be used in the peace-offering, though it be not mentioned by Moses. But,—
[2.] The apostle observes, that one end of the sacrifice at the dedication of the first covenant was purging and making atonement, verses 22, 23; for in all solemn sacrifices blood was sprinkled on the holy things, to purify them and make atonement for them, Lev. xvi. 14, 19, 20. Now this was not to be done but by the blood of an expiatory sacrifice; it was not to be done by the blood of peace-offerings. Wherefore the burnt-offerings inentioned by Moses were expiatory sacrifices, to purge and make atonement. And this sacrifice was principally of goats, Lev. xvi. 9. Wherefore the text — of Moses cannot be well understood without this exposition of the apostle. And we may add hereunto, also, that although the blood of the peace-offering was sprinkled on the altar, Lev. iii, 18, yet was it not sprinkled on the people, as this blood was; wherefore. there was the use of the blood of goats also, as a sin-offering, in this great sacrifice. |